I'd say Azarenka is a bit of a stretch for this list... while she may not be as straightforwardly aggressive as someone like Sharapova or Williams she is definitely able to dictate play just as well with her shot consistency, angles, and her ability to play defense AND offense (plus she hits the ball pretty hard--a tier below Maria/Serena/Lisicki/etc but also a tier above Woz/Radwanska/Errani when it comes to power).

Click to expand...

I'd go further and say that she's not even remotely a pusher. Azarenka tries to be the aggressor in every point, and against most players she does just that. She loves nothing more than to plant herself in the middle of the court and just tee away at the ball, forcing her opponents to scramble left and right. When Azarenka is forced to be defensive on point after point, she often loses (like her matches against Serena).

In response I suggest you look up what a pusher is..look at Woz and then try and tell me sharapova is a pusher because there is no way by any stretch of the imagination that she is a pusher. Sharapova is a poor womens Serena Williams in every way and if Maria is a pusher then you may as well try and call Serena one. Kvitova is a davenport clone and if you think she to is a pusher then you are wrong.

It is clear you really do not watch womens tennis because you lost all credibility by calling Sharapova a pusher.

Click to expand...

Alright, I don't tennis religiously in comparison to you and Tanya, I'm guilty of that. Like I said before, there's literally going to be the same players in WTA (especially ATP) that's going to winning matches.

With that, there's not even a reason for me to be correct on any of this because I just don't care.

Overdrive's last post has just confirmed what I believed all along: he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. I see no reason for this discussion to continue -_-

Click to expand...

Please try to courteous to other members of the board. This is just a friendly conversation.

Like I said before, I would rather see some one else besides the same people to win matches over and over and over again. Yes, Errani can be called a 'pusher', but I don't care as long if it's some one else.....

Alright, I don't tennis religiously in comparison to you and Tanya, I'm guilty of that. Like I said before, there's literally going to be the same players in WTA (especially ATP) that's going to winning matches.

With that, there's not even a reason for me to be correct on any of this because I just don't care.

Pushers also routinely hit very few winners (like wozniacki). Sharapova is quite capable.of hitting 20-30 winners a match no problem where a true pusher could play and win a 3 set match hitting like 8 winners. Sharapova is in no way a pusher in any sense of what a pusher can be called and neither is Li. Inconsistency does not equal being a pusher.

And if you do not care or do not watch tennis, why are ypu posting on a tennis message board and commenting on players styles?

I'd go further and say that she's not even remotely a pusher. Azarenka tries to be the aggressor in every point, and against most players she does just that. She loves nothing more than to plant herself in the middle of the court and just tee away at the ball, forcing her opponents to scramble left and right. When Azarenka is forced to be defensive on point after point, she often loses (like her matches against Serena).

Click to expand...

Azarenka is more a counterpuncher, although even that label seems unfair to her. I can't say she is a straight out offensive player though either.

Pushers also routinely hit very few winners (like wozniacki). Sharapova is quite capable.of hitting 20-30 winners a match no problem where a true pusher could play and win a 3 set match hitting like 8 winners. Sharapova is in no way a pusher in any sense of what a pusher can be called and neither is Li. Inconsistency does not equal being a pusher.

And if you do not care or do not watch tennis, why are ypu posting on a tennis message board and commenting on players styles?

Click to expand...

I didn't say Li was a pusher at all. But besides that, Sharapova's banshee wailing also disrupts the rhythm of the players which can explain her winners to an extent.

I never said that i don't watch tennis. That doesn't make any sense.
Please, if you have reading glasses, use them before you post on here. If you don't have any, try to purchase some.

Azarenka is more a counterpuncher, although even that label seems unfair to her. I can't say she is a straight out offensive player though either.

Click to expand...

I'd call Victoria an aggressive baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies. This is easily verifyable by the fact that Victoria can't and doesn't even defend like a classic counter-puncher/defender which by consequence eliminates her being 100% of the two. She doesn't have the racket tricks/flicks, is often (and still) very uncomfortable in defense (doesn't use confidently other shots than her classic/traditional forehand and backhand swings) and has this typical racket head face position unawareness that better defensive players don't have even in the most complicated defensive situations.

The fact that she's not very comfortable defending with other shots than her classic forehand/backhand is extremely typical of offensive-minded counter-punchers (Li Na etc.). She very often defends with offensive-shots in defensive situations which that alone signals that she's far but light-miles from being a pusher and even counter-puncher IMO.

She's an aggressive-baseliner but it's nevertheless true that she often resorts to a "semi counter-punching" role against more powerfull players but when she has chances actually will never hesitate to actually dictate.

Lastly, her court-positioning is an absolute indication of what she's trying to do -- it's rare almost impossible to find a pusher or counter-puncher play on the baseline which Victoria does 80-90% of the time and she does the same thing against even more powerful players, observe.

Actually this is how I'd classify the 4 first categories on the tour coming from the forecourt to the backcourt:

Code:

Serve & volleyer/Server --> All-court -->
[U]Shot-maker[/U]
Petra Kvitova
[U]Aggressive-baseliner with shotmaking tendencies[/U]
Maria Sharapova, Li Na, Venus Williams
[U]Aggressive-baseliner (classic)[/U]
Daniela Hantuchova, (Victoria Azarenka pre-2011/2012)
[U]Aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies[/U]
Victoria Azarenka (actual, now)
[I]Shot-maker :[/I] player who looks to produce winning shots very quickly, few exchanges
[I]Aggressive-baseliner with Shotmaking tendencies :[/I] player who can keep offensive exchanges but will often resort to trying to win points fast. Often pretty bad shotmakers since it isn't their natural asset.
[I]Aggressive-baseliner (classic) :[/I] works the exchange, clean stricker, can't defend at all.
[I]Aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching tendencies :[/I] defends better but still not as good as a classic counter-puncher.
[I]Offensive-minded counter-puncher :[/I] can dominate the base-line a little bit but her best asset is counter-punching.

I didn't say Li was a pusher at all. But besides that, Sharapova's banshee wailing also disrupts the rhythm of the players which can explain her winners to an extent.

I never said that i don't watch tennis. That doesn't make any sense.
Please, if you have reading glasses, use them before you post on here. If you don't have any, try to purchase some.

Click to expand...

My mistake I thought I saw Li on your list. Whether Sharapova screams or not has nothing to do with weather she is a pusher and she hits winners because she can smack the daylights out of the ball solid angles.

And yes...you earlier said you do not watch womens tennis anymore back in post #8086. Before you start suggesting I wear reading glasses...I suggest you remember what you type.

My mistake I thought I saw Li on your list. Whether Sharapova screams or not has nothing to do with weather she is a pusher and she hits winners because she can smack the daylights out of the ball solid angles.

And yes...you earlier said you do not watch womens tennis anymore back in post #8086. Before you start suggesting I wear reading glasses...I suggest you remember what you type.

Click to expand...

Yes, Sharapova can, but sometimes, she can be a ballbasher like Serena.

I did say that I did not watch it anymore. However, it doesn't mean that the WTA didn't change their playstyles so I can state my opinions.

@hugobosstachini: interesting and pretty accurate assessment I must say. Curious as to where you'd put Serena as far as those categories? (or perhaps a different one?)

Click to expand...

Yes, I was a little bit busy and kind of rushed the list but here's how I'd classify some other players.

Note : I think the best illustration of an aggressive-baseliner with offensive-minded counter-punching IMo is Djokovic. I've always thought the new Victoria being a much much lesser version of Djokovic. Victoria just doesn't have the natural racket handling skills in difference -- I think she's fast enough to defend well or better but she's just rigid with her racket overall and doesn't have the natural feel to get these one more shots into play : she just looks rigid.

She defends much much better off her forehand side and is able to cut under the ball more effectively when they're are out of her reach but overall her defense isn't really convincing.

Note (Serena) : Serena IMO it depends on her days and on who she plays but also the surface. She's able to do this gymnastic well between most of cat. but I think Serena is an aggressive-baseliner with shot-making tendencies. I don't think she's that good of shotmaker (e.g., like Petra) but playing against certain players or certain surface does make that skill great for her -- her serve is also and mainly the reason why she's able to play great shotmaking.

Petra relies much more on exhanges to make winning shots and thus for me is a greater shot-maker light miles in front of Serena. Serena does a mix of quick shot-making, working the ball around the court effectively, serving well etc., she's more complete when Petra only does one stuff (e.g., hit winners and/or nothing else).

I think this classification is fair because it gives account IMO of who is subordonate to whom.

Shot-makers will generally have advantage over anybody under them in their best times, the second after them too, classic aggressive-baseliner's being clean strickers of the ball will pretty much have advantage on base-liners being a little bit more patient/controlled (e.g. Hantuchova vs. Azarenka) but it depends, for example in the Sharapova vs. Azarenka match up.

Another interesting to watch is Bartoli vs. Azarenka between aggressive baseliners. When Bartoli plays her best game she troubles Victoria a lot, Victoria being much more patient.

Interesting breakdown, hugobosstachini. If I may ask, where do you think Sloane Stephens fits? Based on your categories and the descriptions, I'd want to say "offensive minded counter puncher," especially at her best. But she seems to slide down to defensive-minded or even a pusher, when she's not comfortable.

Who falls out of the top 10 first?
Bartoli
Stosur
Kerber
Errani
Kvitova

It's going to be close given the way they're playing or nurturing injuries (Kerber). I would say Bartoli, but Wozniacki, Petrova, and Ivanovic don't strike me as getting any better. I'd LOL if Cibulkova or Kirilenko got top 10, but this is WTA so just watch that happen.

Click to expand...

It could be Stosur and Kvitova as both are--at present--burned out, and show no particular interest in improving their games. The weak-minded, fractured self-esteem issue hurts both. This does not mean they cannot go deep at one of the majors, but who believes either can mow through a tough, healthy field in their present mental form?

But, she's the "NEXT BIG THING." Seriously, I like Sloane, and see a big upside to her and her game. If she works some things out, she could be a Top 10 player. But, it's going to be two steps forward, one step back.

But, she's the "NEXT BIG THING." Seriously, I like Sloane, and see a big upside to her and her game. If she works some things out, she could be a Top 10 player. But, it's going to be two steps forward, one step back.

Click to expand...

She is overrated. She only defeated Serena at the AO because Serena had a bunch of issues. No way she beats a healthy Serena at a slam and I say that as a person who is not a big Serena fan.

Interesting breakdown, hugobosstachini. If I may ask, where do you think Sloane Stephens fits? Based on your categories and the descriptions, I'd want to say "offensive minded counter puncher," especially at her best. But she seems to slide down to defensive-minded or even a pusher, when she's not comfortable.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that too. Stephens can produce a lot of power though for a counter-puncher. I'm not certain she's able to stay on the baseline and dictate play consistently... her backhand is really mediocre and Sumyk in the AO had picked that up reason why Victoria was slaying her despite all the US journals post-match rants. Victoria used a lot of high balls on that side.

Yeah, players with good to reasonable defenses always tend to turn quite defensive when they're unsure of their games. Victoria IMO too, since she added that defensive element in her game also turns out to be passive a lot of times.

She is overrated. She only defeated Serena at the AO because Serena had a bunch of issues. No way she beats a healthy Serena at a slam and I say that as a person who is not a big Serena fan.

Click to expand...

I agree. But, I'm not basing my enthusiasm on the win over Serena. She showed someting just by getting to Serena and toughing out some wins. Again, I don't think she's a sure thing, but there's potential.

^^ The WTA has really become more stable and things will not seem to change in 2013. You can almost guaranty the top 4 will make the SF in all the big events they would participate in.

Click to expand...

I'm re-watching the Serena v Kvitova match and I saw so many positives for Petra. If she can watch a video of this match and see that she doesn't have to overhit or go for the lines because she has natural easy power and depth on her shots she will get into the Top 4. I like Radwanska but she doesn't belong in that group.

I'm re-watching the Serena v Kvitova match and I saw so many positives for Petra. If she can watch a video of this match and see that she doesn't have to overhit or go for the lines because she has natural easy power and depth on her shots she will get into the Top 4. I like Radwanska but she doesn't belong in that group.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Kvitova has the talent to be at the very top of the game. She had that match against Serena in her pocket and she choked it away at the very end. She needs to build up her confidence. If anybody can beat Serena it is Kvitova.

^^ The WTA has really become more stable and things will not seem to change in 2013. You can almost guaranty the top 4 will make the SF in all the big events they would participate in.

Click to expand...

Well the top 3 will anyway...Aga is, especially at the majors, very beatable if someone goes strong against her. Plus on clay she isn't solid, neither is Vika really. So come clay season it will be very shaky to make this claim.

Totally agree. Kvitova has the talent to be at the very top of the game. She had that match against Serena in her pocket and she choked it away at the very end. She needs to build up her confidence. If anybody can beat Serena it is Kvitova.

Click to expand...

PK did NOT choke. Losing a lead, which was only a break anyway, is not equivalent to choking/unraveling. Not choking is not the same as being clutch (Serena) either. The whole match is up on youtube.